Peicai Lin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEICAI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71890
Agency No. A216-268-811
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Peicai Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71890
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an implausibility that he would fail to mention his wife’s medical
condition as a reason for his religious conversion during his credible fear
interview, and an inconsistency regarding the amount of money his family paid for
his release from detention. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th
Cir. 2021) (implausibility findings were supported by record evidence and were
based on reasonable assumptions). Lin’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Lin did not present sufficient
corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish eligibility for relief. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary
evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, in this case, Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71890
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lin’s contentions regarding the reliability of
his statements to a border patrol officer and the notes of his credible fear interview,
and a due process violation regarding the weight given to his documentary
evidence, because he did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lin’s remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lin’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Lin does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --